Building Codes for Climate Action

The draft version of ACI CODE 323 - Low Carbon Concrete is now available for public comment! This new Code was written over the past year with an amazing group of experts. I am incredibly proud of the work we accomplished. It is believed to be the first of its kind and provides model code language to support reducing the embodied carbon of concrete materials used in construction projects. The code was developed through an ANSI approved consensus process. For the first iteration of the code, we focused on limiting upfront embodied carbon using a weighted system; that allows you to flexibly offset high GWP mixtures with low GWP mixtures to ensure that high GWP systems can still be accessed when needed.  We also have a range of exceptions that acknowledge the current technological, economical, and accessibility challenges of our industry. Finally, we require only the largest projects to meet a reduction from the local benchmark GWP, which will ensure that only projects that have the financial capabilities to meet the technological demands associated with that reduction are required to do so. I am also very excited that we are putting the power to set limits in the hands of local adopting agencies. While we do provide benchmark GWPs (and an associated reduction) based on NRMCA regional values, the code recommends that folks determine their local benchmarks and set reductions based on technology readiness in their areas.  We are looking forward to receiving constructive comments from the industry and interested parties. Please use the link below to access the draft and comment forms.  Thank you to ACI Staff who supported us, especially our staff secretary Andrea Schokker, and our Vice-chair Christopher Ferraro, Ph.D., P.E. Additionally, I wish to acknowledge our committee members: Anthony Bentivegna, Colin Reed, ENV SP, Oscar Antommattei, Hessam AzariJafari, Julie Buffenbarger, FACI, LEED AP, Nathan Forrest, Eric Giannini, Scott Keim P.E., FACI, Shana K., Emily Lorenz, Sabbie Miller, Tien Peng, and Tiffany Reed-Villarreal, P.E., ENVSP, M.ASCE; and former committee member Shamim Rashid-Sumar, PE, FSFPE. https://lnkd.in/eA3mJgCf

I’ve been asked to participate in an upcoming #CARB effort, investigating how to insert embodied carbon into our building codes… Here is my response to that invitation: Throughout my extensive experience working to build better in California I've found that most cities are unwittingly sabotaging their own climate actions plans via their own zoning codes and city design 'guidelines.' These zoning and 'guidelines' - which are effectively highly subjective mandatory fiats - force designs that significantly increase embodied carbon in our buildings. Consider this one small example: most cities require that if you build a second floor that it be 'set back' from the lower floor on all sides by a certain number of feet (4-5 feet in most cities.) This has serious structural, thermal and embodied carbon consequences. It means more concrete, more wood, and often steel is required to transfer that indirect load. It means greater surface area, which requires more insulation, more flashing, more waterproofing and more air-sealing (if the designer/builder cares enough.) It makes the structure less sturdy for earthquakes, and creates more edges that leak or become thermal bridges. This all generates significant cost in engineering, but also in increased materials, reduced durability plus increased operational and embodied energy. If every city simply removed second floor setbacks from their zoning codes - or at least limited this requirement more rationally to only facade/s where daylighting planes actually impact neighbors, then a HUGE amount of embodied carbon could be saved. We need to start being more rational about ALL our building codes, and get them ALL to align with our climate action targets. I'm loath to support adding yet another complicated, incrementalist 'bolt-on' requirement at building permitting, which is so far downstream from where serious decisions have already been made on what our buildings are required to look like. Our planning and zoning laws currently severely limit what can actually be done to save carbon emissions. To force design teams to now produce complex calculations on the relatively small savings we can scrape together so far downstream is a colossal waste of time and energy. Let’s start to look at where we should really intervene to maximize our impact on embodied carbon reductions. #PLANNING is where the elephants in this room are birthed. Cc. Chris Magwood Carbon Leadership Forum RMI Jacob Deva Racusin

Have you seen this image circulating this week? Chances are you have! A tornado tore through a solar farm in Highline County, Florida during Hurricane Milton, and the damage is striking. A swath of solar modules was ripped from the single-axis trackers holding them in place. 🌪 As the renewable energy industry continues to grow and innovate, this event underscores the critical need to design and build projects that are more resilient to extreme weather events. Moreover, it serves as a clear reminder of the importance of ensuring and practicing the adoption of up-to-date, modern building codes and standards, given that most infrastructure systems across the U.S. were not built to withstand storms of this magnitude. 💡 That said, let’s take a closer look at the details: The storm was classified as an EF-2 tornado, with wind speeds of 111 to 135 mph. Duke Energy’s Lake Placid Solar Power Plant was commissioned in December 2019. At that time, the 6th Edition (2017) Florida Building Code was in place, which referenced the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard for Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Since then, ASCE 7-16 (2016) and ASCE 7-22 (2022) have been published, which include several notable changes to wind load provisions and criteria. These updates feature revisions to wind speed maps, the introduction of solar facilities provisions, updates to Risk Category designations, new tornado loads and guidance, and a host of other changes. As you can see, it’s imperative that future building code cycles integrate up-to-date engineering standards. I strongly believe that it is up to us — engineers, stakeholders, officials, and AHJs — to adopt these new codes and standards for the design, permitting, and inspection of new infrastructure projects. Manufacturers must then adjust their products to meet these new code requirements as well. Unfortunately, this entire process can be long, slow, and the adoption of new codes varies across the U.S. For reference, per the current 8th Edition (2023) Florida Building Code, which has been updated to reference ASCE 7-22 (the first state to do so, by the way), Risk Category II buildings and structures built in Highline County must be designed to resist the load effects caused by wind speeds of up to 140 mph. And to be clear, solar facilities are designated as Risk Category II infrastructure! Let me know what you think. 👇🏽

Regulations on building energy and carbon emissions are ramping up worldwide, and California recently set a powerful precedent. Since July 1, 2024, commercial buildings over 100,000 sq ft and schools over 50,000 sq ft must comply with strict embodied carbon standards. This is the U.S.’s first whole-building lifecycle assessment policy—and it’s a sign of what’s coming globally. Here’s what California’s regulation requires: 1️⃣ Reusing 45% of existing structures, 2️⃣ Reducing global warming potential (GWP) by 10%, or 3️⃣ Meeting material-specific carbon limits for steel, concrete, rebar, glass, and insulation. The ripple effects are huge. Manufacturers need Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) to prove their materials meet these standards, and without them, they risk being left out of key projects. But California isn’t alone. Across the globe, countries are tightening their building energy codes to combat the climate crisis: ✔️ The EU has been enforcing strict energy performance standards for years. ✔️ Canada’s Net-Zero Building Code is coming by 2030. ✔️ Several U.S. states are considering lifecycle carbon rules inspired by California’s. The message is clear: building codes are becoming climate codes. And while these regulations are crucial for reducing emissions, they’re moving faster than many in the industry can keep up. The challenge? Aligning the supply chain with these new rules. Compliance isn’t just about builders—it affects manufacturers, suppliers, and even material innovators. The opportunity? Companies that adapt now will lead the way, especially as more regions adopt similar standards. #Beboldonbuildings #Buildingcodes #Energyefficiency #buildingenvironment World Bank Global Indicators

🏗️ THE BUILDING CODE UPDATE THAT JUST MADE SOLAR STANDARD ON ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION The International Code Council’s 2025 building code update marks a historic shift in construction norms: 🔸 Solar readiness now required for all new residential and commercial construction 🔹 Minimum electrical capacity standards support future solar and electrification 🔸 Standardized installation practices support streamlined permitting 🔹 Energy storage readiness provisions enhance resilience and grid participation This change impacts building codes in 38 states that base local codes on ICC standards—transforming solar from an optional upgrade to a default feature. 🔸 For builders, it adds minimal upfront cost 🔹 For buyers, it delivers long-term value and clean energy readiness In the new home market, solar-ready design will soon be as standard as insulation or modern wiring. Is your construction or development business prepared for this fundamental shift in building requirements?

Good morning! I wanted to give you an update on what we’ve been seeing develop on the embodied carbon 🏛️policy and 🏗️building code front, highlighting 3 jurisdictions: ⛰️Vancouver, which now requires embodied carbon reporting and reductions for Part 3 buildings as part of the Vancouver building by-law, 🗼 Toronto, which updated v4 of the Toronto Green Standard last year to include an embodied carbon cap on new buildings in their optional Tier 2 standard, and lastly, 🌴 California, which will begin requiring reporting and compliance with embodied carbon reduction pathways this summer for all new non-residential buildings >100,000 sq ft and all schools > 50,000 sq ft as part of CALGreen. In California we’ve also seen AB 2446, which will require embodied carbon reporting for new non-residential buildings >10,000 sq ft and residential buildings over 5 units by 2027, and SB 253, which will require companies that make more than $1bn in annual revenue and do business in California to report on Scope 3 emissions—including embodied carbon if relevant—on 2025 data by 2027. Linking additional resources in the comments! If you’re interested in learning more, our Product Research Lead Emily Flynn published an article last fall tracking these changes. I also recently had the privilege of speaking on a panel with Katie Poss, who is a wealth of knowledge on the embodied carbon policy and standard front. Thanks to the many industry bodies doing deep research and advocacy around embodied carbon in the built environment: Carbon Leadership Forum, Building Transparency, The American Institute of Architects (AIA), RMI, and many more.